Recent Responses
Why does it seem that everything that I read in philosophy always uses "she" or "her" instead of "his" or "he"?
Jean Kazez
April 28, 2010
(changed April 28, 2010)
Permalink
Hurray for singular "they". Apparently good writers have long used it--
This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't helptheir birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and evenShakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (inLucrece), which pedants wou... Read more
Why does it seem that everything that I read in philosophy always uses "she" or "her" instead of "his" or "he"?
Jean Kazez
April 28, 2010
(changed April 28, 2010)
Permalink
Hurray for singular "they". Apparently good writers have long used it--
This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't helptheir birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and evenShakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (inLucrece), which pedants wou... Read more
Suppose I agree with theists that "God exists" is a necessary proposition, and so is either a tautology or contradiction. That seems to indicate that the probability of "God exists" is either 1 or 0. Suppose also that I don't know which it is, but I find the evidential argument from evil convincing, and so rate the probability of "God exists" at, say, 0.2. But if the probability of "God exists" is either 1 or 0, then it can't be 0.2 - that would be like saying that "God exists" is a contingent proposition, which I've accepted it isn't. How then can I apply probabilistic reasoning to "God exists" at all? If I can, then how should I explain the apparent conflict?
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
Interesting points. I take it that the most reasonable reply for a defender of the ontological argument to make is to claim that Prefoessor Smith's world is not in fact possible. If one can make a case for abstracta (properties or propositions necessarily existing) then there cannot be a w... Read more
There seem to be two major assertions about how an artwork comes into existence: the first one considers the artist to have some kind of access to the "essence of truth" or something like that; the artist receives the idea in an inspirational moment and consequently creates the artwork on that foundation afterwards. The second assertion considers art to be the product of a huge mental or bodily effort. The second one is undermined by the statements of many artists. But what do you think about the first assertion? I'm not sure about refusing it right away.
Mitch Green
April 23, 2010
(changed April 23, 2010)
Permalink
Thanks for your question. Your question is at least as much one for psychology as it is for philosophy. The reason is that it is not quite about the definition of art, which is probably a strictly philosophical question; rather it is about the causal conditions under which art is created. In s... Read more
Does Peter Singer really advocate/defend infanticide under certain circumstances? I recently read that he argues that parents should be able to abort mentally handicapped newborns or even to have a thirty day waiting period with which to decide whether or not they want to keep the child. Is this true and if so does this show a progression of the pro-choice stance on abortion extending beyond the womb?
Jean Kazez
April 23, 2010
(changed April 23, 2010)
Permalink
You can find out about Singer's position on infanticide here--
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
Log in to post comments
Why does it seem that everything that I read in philosophy always uses "she" or "her" instead of "his" or "he"?
Jean Kazez
April 28, 2010
(changed April 28, 2010)
Permalink
Hurray for singular "they". Apparently good writers have long used it--
This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't helptheir birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and evenShakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (inLucrece), which pedants wou... Read more
What makes a philosopher a Philosopher? Isn't a philosopher just an opinion of someone who happens to get published?
Louise Antony
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
Nobody owns the word "philosopher." It's used in many different ways, including "someone who ponders important, fundamental questions" and "someone who claims to ponder important, fundamental questions, but actually just screws around." In the use most common among academics, "philosopher" me... Read more
Does Peter Singer really advocate/defend infanticide under certain circumstances? I recently read that he argues that parents should be able to abort mentally handicapped newborns or even to have a thirty day waiting period with which to decide whether or not they want to keep the child. Is this true and if so does this show a progression of the pro-choice stance on abortion extending beyond the womb?
Jean Kazez
April 23, 2010
(changed April 23, 2010)
Permalink
You can find out about Singer's position on infanticide here--
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
Log in to post comments
Many people would agree that to use the word "gay" as a term meaning "bad" is disrespectful, or even homophobic. Only slightly fewer people hold a similar view of the word "retarded." However, there are also people who take a stronger position, according to which words like "insane" and "lame" are similarly degrading and inappropriate (I've heard these words described as "ableist"). Although the stronger position strikes me as incorrect, I can't say why. Is there any way to draw a distinction between the use of words like "gay" and words like "insane" as generally pejorative terms? Or will we one day agree that all such usage is comparable to racist or sexist language? What is it exactly that makes such usage problematic?
Louise Antony
April 22, 2010
(changed April 22, 2010)
Permalink
Words have meanings, but they also have histories. The term "Paddy Wagon" is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "an enclosed motortruck used by police to carry prisoners." That definition is adequate, if all you want to know is what people are talking about when they use that term... Read more
My question deals with consciousness. I believe I understand what it means for me to be conscious of what is occurring around me, but I have the feeling that a lot of this depends on what I believe to be the consciousness of what is occurring (perhaps in an abstract form) around me or a result of something that is or had been conscious in some manner at one time. As am example of what I am attempting to describe, would I even take note of a person in my line of sight if something about that person (could be a very simple thing such as a glance from that person in my direction, the shoes he or she is wearing, or the waves of the ocean) that was somewhere along the line a conscious act of that person or of nature. And then could this be projected to a building or a tree since the tree is a living thing and the building was constructed by people. I know there is a certain vagueness about this question but I do not know how to put it in a more definite form.
Jonathan Westphal
May 1, 2010
(changed May 1, 2010)
Permalink
Louise Anthony's reply is absolutely right, though the problem of other minds will be always with us no doubt. I wonder whether there is something else in addition in your mind that lies behind the question. Are you suggesting that whenever I am conscious there is a very interesting cause in the... Read more